Poor Petrescu's Poor Performance

Referee Silviu Petrescu (Romanian born, Canadian citizen) officiated the international friendly match between Brazil and Mexico on Sunday 3 June 2012. The match finished 0—2.

The news report mentioned a number of controversial incidents, and this post will highlight some match incidents so that lessons may be learned.


There are also some video highlights of the match on YouTube:
Brazil vs Mexico 0-2 - International Friendly Game 2012 - All goals & Highlights - 03.06.2012


Incident One: Tight Offside Call

In the 10', Brazil's Leandro Damiao scored from an attacking move but his goal was disallowed for offside. Here's the freeze frame:

Is the Brazil forward (yellow) offside?

Incident Two: First Penalty to Brazil … Missed

In the 20', Brazil's Hulk breaks away at the halfway line and charges into the penalty area. Referee Petrescu (blue) remains well behind play and subsequently misses the penalty decision. Here are the freeze frames:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil's Hulk (yellow) is brought down in the penalty area

In the 22', Mexico's Giovani dos Santos scored a spectacular angled goal. 0—1
[Note: dos Santos is a Tottenham Hotspurs player, but manager Harry Redknapp does not appear to think he is good enough for the Spurs first team in the English Premier League. Despite this, dos Santos has consistently performed well at international level in recent years.]

Incident Three: Penalty to Mexico … Correct Call

In the 32', a Mexico player is fouled on the goal area line and the Referee has a good view of this. Here are the freeze frames:

 

 

Penalty awarded to Mexico

Referee Petrescu has his can of white spray paint (which is used in the MLS) but did not appear to use it at all during the match

 

Non-standard positioning of match officials during a penalty kick

The score is now 0—2 to Mexico, and the atmosphere is changed and charged because Brazil feel hard done by (a disallowed goal for an incorrect offside, and a missed penalty). These two technically-gifted teams begin to play more aggressively and physically.




Incident Four: Unfair Challenge by Brazil and DFK to Mexico … Missed

In the 37', Mexico's dos Santos is fouled (it is a tactical foul) by Brazil's defender but Referee Petrescu does not see anything suspect or wrong and allows the ball to run out of the pitch before allowing treatment to dos Santos. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Petrescu does NOT award a DFK to Mexico

Incident Five: Unfair Challenge by Mexico and DFK to Brazil … Correct Call

In the 49', Mexico foul Brazil (this is similar to Incident Four) and this time the Referee makes the correct call. Here are the freeze frames:

Referee Petrescu does award a DFK to Brazil

Incident Six: Second Penalty to Brazil … Missed

In the 53', Brazil's forward runs into the penalty area and the Mexican goalkeeper challenges for the ball. It is an obvious penalty but Referee Petrescu remains well behind play and makes a poor call. The Referee calls for a goal kick, which means the Referee knows the Brazilian attacker touched the ball ahead of the goalkeeper. So why wasn't a penalty awarded? Here are the freeze frames:

Mexico goalkeeper (blue) brings down a Brazil forward (yellow)

"No penalty; goal kick to Mexico"

This does not excuse the way Brazilian players surrounded the Referee though.

 

Incident Seven: Poor Advantage Leads to More Ill-Feelings Amongst Players

In the 82', Mexico foul Brazil and it appears Referee Petrescu plays advantage (Note: Referee Petrescu does not use the standard signal for Advantage, which is why it only appears that he has played Advantage). Here are the freeze frames:

About four seconds after Mexico's foul, Referee Petrescu points with his right arm and apparently signals "Advantage"

 

There is no "Advantage" because Brazil captain Marcelo is eventually forced back

 

Eleven seconds after Mexico's foul, the ball eventually goes out for a Brazil throw-in. But there is now a little scuffle ...

 Referee Petrescu has lost control of the situation

This is what happened during the scuffle ...

 Referee Petrescu sees Mexico (green #13) grab Brazil (yellow #11) by the throat ...

... and then has to jump up to avoid the Brazil player who has fallen to the ground

This is perhaps the fastest Referee Petrescu has moved and reacted all match! Look how he leaps and lands to avoid stepping on Neymar (Brazil #11).

However, this situation offered poor Advantage because, even though Brazil kept possession, there was obviously no opportunity to advance (hence there was "No Advantage").

Referee Petrescu's inability to feel and react to the atmosphere of the match meant that, by attempting to play advantage, the Referee actually made things worse. Mexico, having gotten away with many physical challenges, thought that they could continue in this vein because the Referee wasn't always blowing up for fouls. This also frustrated Brazil since they perceived the Referee wasn't helping their cause by making bad calls (such as playing poor advantages and missing two obvious penalty calls to Brazil). All this tension led to the spat between two players and a send-off incident (Mexico #13 grabbing Brazil #11 by the throat) that Referee Petrescu ignored.


SUMMARY
Referee Silviu Petrescu gave a poor performance in this absorbing match. It was also a FIFA-sanctioned match which is why it was puzzling to see the Referee carrying a can of white spray paint on the FOP. It was however apparently not used.

Petrescu has been a FIFA Referee since 2002. It would be interesting to gauge his performance over this ten-year period to see how he measures up to being an international Referee during the "modern era" of the beautiful game.

One Scenario Where EARs May Be Useful

UEFA's 'experiment' with using additional ARs—or extra ARs (EARs) as this blog likes to call them—has generally failed in its original objectives. UEFA continue to ignore the evidence that has accumulated over the years about the ineffectiveness of EARs and will continue to use EARs at EURO 2012 and beyond … until the day comes when goal line technology is introduced and will presumably usurp the need for using EARs.

Having watched some recent international friendlies in the build-up to EURO 2012 (Note: these are FIFA-sanctioned matches, which means there are no EARs deployed) there is perhaps one scenario where EARs may be useful. Take a look at the following examples from three matches:


MATCH 1: Norway vs England on 26 May 2012. The match finished 0—1.

In the 49' with England leading 1—0, England (dark blue) take a shot on goal. Here are the freeze frames:

On first look, it appears the England shot had struck another England player (dark blue) who is standing in an offside position. As a result, an incorrect decision was made by the AR by calling offside.

However, here is the incident from another camera angle (which is also an approximation of the view that an EAR would have):

Here, an EAR would have clearly seen the ball touch a Norway player (red) and the correct decision would have been a corner kick to England (dark blue).


MATCH 2: Switzerland vs Germany on 26 May 2012. The match finished 5—3.

In the 50' with Switzerland leading 2—1, Switzerland (red) cross the ball into the box and the ball is headed into the German (green) goal. But who scored? Here are the freeze frames:

On first look, it appears the Swiss player (red 18) who was in an offside position did not touch the ball. As a result, an incorrect decision was made by the AR to allow the goal to stand, since the Swiss player (red) standing in an offside position was apparently not interfering with play.

This is what the AR sees:

However, here is the incident from another camera angle behind the goal line (which is also an approximation of the view from an EAR, who would presumably be positioned behind the goal line and closer to the action compared with the AR who is standing on the touch line):

This camera angle shows that the ball's direction changes because the Swiss player (red 18), standing in an offside position, makes contact with the ball.


These two similar scenarios (from match 1 and match 2), where there is an attacking player in an offside position during a shot on goal, is an area where perhaps the EAR can best provide assistance to the match Referee. ARs have a difficult job to do this, so having an extra match official standing next to the goal and behind the goal line is a better solution for such incidents. Teamwork would count for a lot here.

This is the only scenario that I have observed (and can presently think of) where EARs may actually help benefit the performance of the match Referee (by helping to make the correct decision). It is a scenario that the instigators (i.e. UEFA, FIFA and IFAB) of this system never initially imagined or acknowledged.
Remember, they purposely stated that the original thinking behind the implementation of EARs was to:
1) promote better decision making on suspected fouls in the penalty area; and
2) have a deterrent effect, as players will be aware that they are being closely watched.

Later on, it became apparent that EARs would also help out by:
3) assisting the match Referee in confirming whether the whole of the ball crosses the goal line under the crossbar and between the goal posts.

Nevertheless, the authorities never mentioned or imagined EARs helping out with anything like the above scenarios that this post has presented (i.e. assisting the match Referee in better decision-making by helping to identify the last player to have touched the ball before either a goal is scored, the ball goes out of play or whether a player known to be in an offside position has interfered with play).


MATCH 3: Netherlands vs Bulgaria on 26 May 2012. The match finished 1—2.

In the 49' with the Netherlands (red) leading 1—0, a Bulgaria (white) player crosses the ball along the ground in the penalty area and the ball hits a Dutch player (Rafael van der Vaart). The Referee is positioned on the other side of the penalty area and does not have a good close view. However, after a long pause the Referee whistles for handball and awards a penalty. Could the AR have assisted the Referee in this incident? Here are the freeze frames:

The Referee whistles for handball against the Netherlands (red) and awards a penalty to Bulgaria (white)

 To add further insult, the Referee cautions van der Vaart

 Was this really a cautionable offence?

However, here is the incident from another camera angle behind the goal line (which is also an approximation of the view an EAR would have had):

Where does the ball make contact with van der Vaart? His torso or his arm?

This may have been the EAR's view (an approximation)

Once again, perhaps an EAR standing behind the goal line would have been better able to assist the Referee (compared with the AR). It is debatable whether there was actual handball, and if it was handball whether it was deliberate. An EAR positioned behind the goal line would have been in the best position to determine whether the ball struck van der Vaart's torso rather than his trailing arm. Where does the ball make contact with van der Vaart? His torso or his arm?


SUMMARY
There is perhaps one scenario where EARs may prove helpful to the decision-making of the match Referee. That is, in assisting the match Referee in better decision-making by helping to identify the last player to have touched the ball before either a goal is scored, the ball goes out of play or whether a player known to be in an offside position has interfered with play.

But is this enough to justify the 'usefulness' and 'effectiveness' of EARs?  
Are EARs the extra eyes needed in football?”

Furthermore, as soon as goal line technology is introduced and as soon as EARs are discarded, it is a certainty (i.e. guaranteed) that whenever controversial incidents involving the above scenarios arise, they will become prominent—and overhyped by the media—because no match official will be able to be in the optimum position to make the correct call (during such scenarios as described above).

As an aside, the performance of EARs at EURO 2012 will be interesting to observe. Obviously, most observers will be focused on the performance of the match Referees but the Referee's assistants all contribute to that overall team performance which is why their effectiveness is important too. Here's wishing everyone an entertaining, enjoyable and educational experience at EURO 2012!!!


* Coincidence. All three of the above incidents during international friendlies all occurred within a minute of each other (i.e. during the 49th and 50th minute). Uncanny!

Not Convinced About Collina in Respect Campaign

Here's the lead sentence from UEFA's social responsibility programme:

"Swapping shirts at the end of a match is a symbol of respect between opponents."

And here we see a famous Referee swapping shirts with a famous player:

Pierluigi Collina and Karem Benzema. Pic from UEFA.
 

Question 1: Does the Referee regard the player as an 'opponent'?

Question 2: Do Referees really exchange jerseys with players?

I am unconvinced about this latest respect campaign from UEFA.* UEFA claim that "Pierluigi Collina and Karem Bezema exchange jerseys as a mark of Respect". This is an incorrect and illogical claim. Also, Collina has previously admitted to not being able to give away his Referee shirts in exchange for players' shirts because he said Referees are never given enough shirts in the first place.

Instead, UEFA Referees' Chief Pierluigi Collina has a reputation for collecting famous football players' shirts without exchanging his own and even got Graham Poll hooked on this habit. Poll famously wrote in his autobiography about his unabashed attempt at making sure he was standing next to Zinedine Zidane when he blew up for full time, just so that he could be the first to 'claim' the great Zizou's jersey. How pathetic. This makes a mockery of the integrity, credibility and neutrality of Referees. Referees should not be seen to swap shirts with players with whom they are officiating matches with.

This blog admires Collina for his performance and dedication to Refereeing. However, this blog does not agree with some of Collina's practices such as the habit of encouraging Referees to swap shirts with famous players that they have officiated. It is hypocritical of Collina to promote this campaign. Also, it is by definition unethical.

* Just as I remain unconvinced about UEFA's 'experiment' and justification in using additional assistant referees, or extra ARs (EARs, as I like to call them as explained here). See posts here and here.